Department of Pediatric Surgery, Chelsea Children's Hospital, Chelsea and Westminster NHS Foundation Trust, Imperial College London, London, UK.
Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech. 2020 Dec 23;31(3):363-367. doi: 10.1097/SLE.0000000000000895.
Thoracoscopic repair of esophageal atresia (EA) is analyzed in this systematic review that compares outcomes between primary and staged repairs.
PubMed/Embase databases were reviewed for articles on thoracoscopic repair of EA, and articles were selected for primary and staged repairs. Descriptive statistics were used to analyze the quantitative parts of the study.
Thirty-six articles identified between 1999 and 2019 met the inclusion criteria and offered 776 patients for this analysis. Primary repairs were performed in n=703 and staged repairs in n=73. Comparative analysis showed that esophageal anastomosis was performed using absorbable suture in 88% primary and 78% staged repairs. Anastomotic leak rates were comparable between primary n=65/696 (9%) and staged repairs n=8/73 (11%). The re-fistulation rate was 2% in primary and 1% in staged repairs. There was no difference between suture material and re-fistulation (P>0.05; NS). In primary repairs, nonabsorbable sutures were found to be associated with more leaks than absorbable sutures (P<0.05*). The conversion rate was similar between 2 approaches; primary n=49/680 (7%) and staged n=6/73 (8%); P>0.05. No significant differences were found in the rate of anastomosis strictures between primary n=135/703 (19%) and staged repair n=21/73 (29%); P>0.05. The overall mortality was n=20/703 (3%) in primary and n=1/73 (1%) in staged repairs; P>0.05.
Successful thoracoscopic primary- and staged-EA repairs have been reported with low rate of complications. Outcomes between primary and staged repairs do not show significant differences with regards to re-fistulation, anastomotic leaks, conversion rates, and mortality.
本系统评价分析了胸腔镜治疗食管闭锁(EA)的结果,比较了一期和分期修复的结果。
检索了 1999 年至 2019 年期间关于胸腔镜治疗 EA 的文献,并对一期和分期修复的文章进行了选择。使用描述性统计分析了研究的定量部分。
1999 年至 2019 年期间,共检索到 36 篇文章符合纳入标准,其中 776 例患者纳入本分析。703 例患者行一期修复,73 例患者行分期修复。比较分析显示,88%的一期修复和 78%的分期修复中采用可吸收缝线进行食管吻合。一期修复吻合口漏发生率为 65/696(9%),分期修复为 8/73(11%),两者无差异。一期修复和分期修复的再吻合率分别为 2%和 1%,无差异(P>0.05;NS)。缝线材料与再吻合之间无差异(P>0.05;NS)。一期修复中,非吸收缝线与吻合口漏有关(P<0.05*)。两种方法的转化率相似,一期修复为 49/680(7%),分期修复为 6/73(8%);P>0.05。一期修复吻合口狭窄发生率为 135/703(19%),分期修复为 21/73(29%),两者无差异(P>0.05)。一期修复死亡率为 20/703(3%),分期修复为 1/73(1%),两者无差异(P>0.05)。
胸腔镜一期和分期 EA 修复术成功率高,并发症发生率低。一期和分期修复的结果在再吻合、吻合口漏、转化率和死亡率方面无显著差异。